Re: [whatwg] Proposal: navigator.cores

On 7/2/2014 8:31 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> That thread concluded with a "let's see how this feature is going to 
> be used before we commit". Blink and WebKit certainly are in favor. 

I went back and looked at the later messages in that thread. Your 
argument implies that a plurality of engines implementing this feature 
would mollify the detractors, and that is certainly not my reading. 
People brought up serious concerns about the utility and wisdom of this 
API, and summaries like yours very much feel like an attempt to avoid 
addressing those concerns by creating "facts on the ground" instead.

The concerns I recall off the top of my head, to wit:
1. Fingerprinting
2. Use of the API is implicitly assuming that the browser uses only one 
thread, which is not a safe assumption.
3. The existence and probable eventual takeover of asynchronous multiple 
core architectures.
4. There are better ways to achieve the desired use cases.

I've personally mused that the usual motivation for this feature is 
essentially predicated on the notion that there is too much work to be 
assigned for a "weak" computer, yet the advocates of this API respond to 
comments about the problems involved with high dynamic usage of the 
computer with "the scheduler can solve it"--the same scheduler whose 
inability to cope with too much work is the basis for the API in the 
first place.

Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 19:05:48 UTC